Still can't believe it. Been ugly crying ever since I saw the email this morning. Still feels like a dream I haven't woken up from.
cGPA: 3.34
L2: likely anywhere around 3.65-3.8 (I had a part-time course load a few semesters and also took summer courses so I'm not sure how they calculated it).
LSAT: 157 (Jan.), 159 (March)
ECs: Nothing special, honestly. Volunteered at a couple non-profits that worked with kids, worked throughout undergrad. Feel free to PM me if you'd like to know more.
Filled out Part B.
I was ready to move to Kingston in the Fall - I'd already provisionally accepted Queen's, but I will be firmly accepting whenever it shows up on OLSAS.
Can't wait to meet all you lovely humans in September!

Still in total shock, I’ve dreamed about going to Osgoode since high school!
Accepted this morning straight from queue via OASIS, went in queue February 27th
cGPA: 3.52
LSAT: 144/146/156
ECs: volunteer, work experience, two publications
I’ve checked this forum and OASIS daily for two application cycles and my dreams finally came true, don’t give up and stay positive!!

You're free to do whatever works for you, obviously, but to me this is the kind of thinking that has law students and early call lawyers relying on substances, developing eating disorders and generally just falling psychologically to shit. You cannot, you cannot, you cannot subject every decision you make, every day, to some kind of obsessive "will this help me get a job one day!" analysis. You just can't.
For the love of God, join a club or don't join a club based on whether or not you're interested in participating in that club. Volunteer or don't volunteer for some rep position based on the same reasoning. Should you do some things in law school, over and above memorizing your textbooks? Yes, of course you should - but that's because I would expect anyone who wants to actually practice law would find that interest comes naturally. If it doesn't, you should be trying to figure out if you're in the right field at all, or perhaps angling towards legal academia (at which point presumably you've become more interested in RA positions, publishing, law journals, etc.). Stop thinking of this as an artificial process. Do the things that naturally interest you and your natural interest rather than the accumulated weight of bullet points on your CV is what will lead to some opportunity down the road.
I'm further down the road than most on this forum, at this point, and trust me, it doesn't change. By that I mean, part of the justification used by anxiety-prone law applicants, law students, early call lawyers etc. is some version of "just for now" thinking. As in "just for now" I'm going to put aside the things that actually matter to me, and concentrate on doing all the things that I figure are going to help me get to X. And then when I get to X, I'll have all the time and leeway and money I need to really be myself and get back to what matters. Except X never comes. It never, ever, ever comes. There's always a new goalpost, always a new justification, always a new "just for now" objective, and at some point you wonder how the fuck your life turned into something you don't even recognize anymore.
Be who you are. Concentrate on what you actually care about. Pursue the goals that genuinely matter to you, for the right reasons, right now. Because if you don't do it now, you never will. And believe it or not, all of the most accomplished people I know followed this advice, whether consciously or otherwise. Meanwhile, all of the people giving you this advice based in "the job market is tight, everything is competitive, do anything and everything you can to look better, don't waste your time on trivialities..." those people are themselves just trying to hang on by their fingernails, and the advice they are giving you comes in large part from their own anxiety. So why the heck are you listening to them?
Anyway. Good luck everyone - whatever you do.

Accepted this morning! Over the moon excited.
CGPA 3.12
L2 3.5
LSAT: 151, 154, 161
My letter was tailored to Windsor, i have strong EC's, two academic references, and legal work experience
My second acceptance, I was admitted to Bora Laskin Facutly of Law on April 15th, 2019. I am a bit torn between the two, I feel as though Bora Laskin Facutly of Law has a very unique program, especially with the IPC program. I'm going to have to do some serious thinking.
I also wanted to say that I have been a LONG time lurker on this forum. I bombed the LSAT twice and never in a million years thought I could score above a 150. I also was rejected from every single law school I applied to last year, and this year I received so far, two acceptances. Do not ever think this achievement is out of your reach. I was one of those people who would read posts like this and thought It would never be me. It takes hard work, dedication and discipline but you will get there.
Congrats to everyone accepted and good luck to those waiting.

?
We can't just jump to conclusions like this.
I know so many people who got in with a 146, even.
Leanne over the phone told me I would have gotten in if I applied last year, but this year more people applied so it was a tougher decision to make.
Even if I have to rewrite, I wont. I wrote it 6 times already.
I am waitlisted and I have faith.
Be more open-minded, please.

I over committed in 2L to a bunch of ECs because it seemed like that's what everyone else was doing and it was a major time suck, made me miserable, and I deeply regretted it.
That being said, I got very involved in clinic work which led to summer jobs, demonstrated my interest and dedication to a niche area of law, and directly led to my articling job. I was a very mediocre student. There had to be higher achieving students applying for that position but I had three years of relevant work experience and a winning personality. My involvement also made sense in the context of my life story and why I went to law school.
If I could do it again I would have just done the clinic plus something fun like yoga, or intramural volleyball or wine tasting or something.

What I'm trying to get at is there are more helpful answers than just critiquing the question that was asked. OP has recognized that it's a hard question to answer, and that not every case is the same. They're not looking for a hard and fast rule or get rich quick scheme.
As in my other example- finance jobs pay more than human resources jobs, but at the same time, a talented HR person who has a tremendous work ethic (and maybe a little luck) can make more than someone in finance.
And, to put the cherry on top, having people work for you rather than working for them is bound to make you more money in any industry if you're running a profitable business and scaling accordingly.
A medical school student asking "which professions make the most money", is almost just as subjective, and I'm sure some doctors would have cookie-cutter answers such as "well that depends on how hard you work and how talented you are", but the principles can be applied to give helpful advice at least. I can tell you, and I'm not a doctor, that a plastic surgeon who owns their own clinic makes more money per year than a general family doctor. Surgeons make more as well, and among surgeons I'd wager that heart and neuro-surgeons make more money on aggregate than ortho. With that said I'll acknowledge your argument that a talented and hardworking ortho surgeon can make more than a heart surgeon (perhaps they're business-oriented and partner with professional sports teams on the side, who knows).
This conversation gets cyclical real quick. Point is that there's no need to be rude and condescending to someone who is asking a genuine question with less experience than you. Sometimes it feels like a select few lawyers on this site just like to argue and flex their muscles over small details.

My best law school exam mark to date was one I felt okay coming out of, and then after speaking to a friend about it, figured I got a C or D. He said he spent like half the allotted word count for the fact pattern talking about issue x, whereas I didn't even bring it up. He was a smart guy so I was mortified.
I ended up getting the second best grade in the class and he did poorly on that exam.
Lesson: don't talk to your classmates about an exam after an exam.

To a degree, everyone has their own style and prompting anyone to adopt a style that isn't natural for them at all isn't helpful. I feel like the OP and I are extremely different in this regard, and so my advice here is of limited use. All the same, here's the best general advice I haven't seen yet.
When you have the option of taking a chance or not taking a chance, you should take the chance. In other words, default to saying or doing things you aren't sure if you should say or do, rather than play it safe. When a job is yours to lose, that's when you play it safe. When you're one of 20 candidates for a few positions, there is absolutely no benefit to being average in that field. If you are a bland, average candidate in five different interviews, you'll get five polite rejections. If you're a memorable, risk-taking candidate in five interviews, you may say or do something dumb in several of those and take yourself out of contention. But you only need one offer. Sometimes the chance will pay off, and you're the applicant they remember for the right reasons.
Look at it this way. The idea of "selling yourself" is so utterly fake. You can keep yourself up at night trying to figure out what the fuck that's supposed to be. Books on salesmanship and stuff try to teach it, like if only a customer likes you then maybe they'll buy your company's products instead of the next company's products. To a degree there's truth to it. But it's mucky and I find a lot of it is fake. Any rational person buys the better product, even if the sales rep is less fun to be around. But here's the thing. In law, you are also the product. You are auditioning not just to sell the firm's legal services, but to be a part of the firm's legal product. The people interviewing you aren't thinking "do we like this person" they are thinking "will our clients like this person - trust them - feel good about them?" That's what matters.
Whatever the hell it is you do to make people trust you, in real life, that's what you want to bring to interviews. Think of any time in your life people have been relied on you. And if that hasn't happened before, start looking at clinics and other opportunities to create that interaction. Because that's what law is. You're the person with the answers, or the person who'll get the answers, and get them right. You don't need to be the most popular kid in the class to create that vibe. A confident nerd can lean into that same vibe. So can a quiet, bookish type. If you believe you're the right person to be doing the work, and that trusting you is the smart thing to do, you'll be able to sell it. The way you do it, from that point, is secondary.
Anyway, good luck.

Not really. OP has an A-A+ average. It's helpful advice that people give all the time to the folks who lack perspective on their grades, and is a reminder to calm down and not hyperventilate about "going downhill" all the distant way to an A-. There was that one McGill student all over these forums who needed to consistently get that advice because she was having meltdowns about not having a 3.9 or something ridiculous.
It is very much overblown that clerks have straight As, because straight As are exceedingly rare and not everyone with the grades to clerk wants to go clerk anyway. I personally would have had a negative view of any of my student peers that had OP's grades and described getting an A- instead of an A or A+ as "downhill" or having to compensate for a single B+. They get ostracized as the grade-grubby, gunner types that lack perspective. You may not like the advice, but it was fairly given to remind someone to keep things in perspective.

Yeah. I don't consider parents to be stakeholders in the legal community either. Whatever the heck that even means. The idea that the parent of a grown professional wants or needs to be involved in their professional life still is frankly terrifying to me. If I had even the slightest idea that my doctor, or dentist, or accountant, or anyone else I rely upon still needed job coaching from a parent with no comprehension of those various jobs, I'd run like hell. And I still don't have any idea if we're talking about some real student who is on the verge of professional practice or some teen who'd be mortified their mother/father is on this site at all.
Also, if you're a visual learner, I don't know what the hell you want me to do - draw a diagram? You still make no sense, whether in words or in pictographs.
If you were a client, I'd still tell you the truth rather than what you want to believe. And the truth is, the only way to support your child in pursuing a profession is to do all the common sense things any parent would do on a very general level, and otherwise stay the hell out of the way. The fact that you're looking for some other answer is what's bothering you - and I don't lie to my clients just to make them feel good.
Anyway, good luck with whatever. But seriously, on the chance you actually read this. I'm not saying "stay out" to offend you. I'm saying it because it's the same advice I'd give to a friend who was unreasonably involved in their kids' lives. Just because you don't like hearing it doesn't make it bad or insincere advice.

@Alchi How does an anecdotal statement regarding a single class amongst access applicants by one professor warrant the conclusion that "[t]hey are definitely discriminating against Access applicants"?
By applying for the access category, we are given an opportunity for entry into a highly competitive program despite (typically) having stats that are below the average threshold. The mere fact that access applicants have overcome certain obstacles does not mean we are entitled to anything, be it acceptance, waitlist or early rejection. I believe access files will take longer to evaluate as they must look at the validity of our claims and whether or not we demonstrate a potential to succeed in law school. With limited seats and more holistic evaluation, as a group, we are not being "shafted": some within the category with higher stats have already heard back.
Yes, it is frustrating to wait and be ignored. I completely understand as I am still waiting on many schools. Nevertheless, your personal anxiety should not cause you to make a defamatory statement on a public forum. Try to be patient, happy that you are still being considered, and remember that your value as a human being goes beyond this process.

I've wanted to answer this question sooner, but I have two predominant reactions.
First, I realize that it's been a long time since I met many new people outside of a context that's at least semi-professional. I don't find myself standing around house parties anymore, drinking a beer in a circle of people I've just met, going "so, what is it you do?" Maybe ten years ago I could have cited a string of experiences relating to how people respond to my profession. But not anymore. I actually find myself digging for examples of how anyone new has responded to my job in a long time.
My second reaction is, I actually met two new people on the weekend (friends of my wife's family) and most of the time I spent talking with this guy who runs an arts organization. Interesting guy. In some very tangential way what he does and what I do could intersect at some point, and we exchanged cards. It really wasn't a thing at all that I practice law, or that I'm in criminal defence. Although he sat on an interesting jury lately, and without going into specifics (which he can't do) we had an interesting chat about that experience.
I guess what I'm saying it, for good or for ill, at some point your social environment narrows a bit and you self-select into relationships with people for whom your job just isn't a big deal. It's useful to simply be a lawyer at times - in politics, in certain professional settings, etc. Half of that is also just having any professional job and being a middle-aged dude in a suit.
I don't know if there's a good lesson out of this. It's a very important exercise to remain conscious of how other people respond to you, how you respond to others, etc. Perception and privilege are huge factors at play, here. It's not like saying "I'm a lawyer" is a thing that occurs without context. When I say that, the most common reaction (based on dress, deportment, environment, etc.) is "oh, yeah." But try saying that as a young woman of colour. You'll get a different reaction. And since we aren't going to somehow eliminate bias, privilege, etc. any time soon, the next best option is at least remaining aware of how it all plays out.
But yeah, it's a thing for a while. It's weird to think "this is who I am now, and it's how people see me." Then one day, you wake up and it's just normal because that's who you are. Like any life change - getting older, having kids, finding yourself in some unexpected position of authority - it's odd until it isn't. Though I'll admit, I still have moments when I think "I can't believe they let me do this stuff - if only they really knew me." But I've come around to the view that everyone has those moments too, or should. The Pope, the Secretary-General of the UN, our Prime Minister - I truly hope and believe they all have moments when they think "I can't believe they're letting me do this!" I'm sure Trump doesn't have that level of self-reflection. He probably thinks it makes sense that he's President. But that's a whole other issue.

Yes I am satisfied with life, 9 years out of law school. In addition to work I make a real effort to stay connected with old friends and attend social events. I’m happy with my income, over 200, but I work too much. I advise people not to do it for the money but can’t take my own advice. Doing litigation problems keep coming up and people keep throwing money at me to fix those problems. I measure money in terms of the vacations it could buy but I just never get around to taking the vacation.
I don’t think I’d choose to be a lawyer again given a second life because I’ve already done it. I’ve accomplished pretty much everything I set out to do, other than argue before the SCC. But if I went back in time of course I would do it again because I needed money and liked to argue.
Other jobs I may have been happier in include actor or musician. I guess it’s not too late to switch.

I disagree with your perspective here. If someone studies law abroad with the intention of working in Canada after, then in most cases, either (a) they didn't have the grades to get into a Canadian law school, or (b) they could have gone to a Canadian law school, but made the choice to go somewhere that is widely known to create hurdles. They accepted the risk, and arguably made a questionable decision. Both circumstances give rise to, I think, a reasonable basis for skepticism.
If there are truly unique considerations at play - there wasn't initially an intention to move to Canada and circumstances changed, or something required a move to another country for three years but not longer than that for some reason - those can be expressed in a cover letter, and I think would be taken seriously by an employer. Certainly, my firm has interviewed, and made offers to, articling candidates who went to law school abroad, who had unique considerations. But that's not the case for the majority.
I'm also not convinced by your comment about how bad it is "to miss out on productive work from qualified candidates because of incorrect assumptions". Sure, maybe you're passing on a candidate who would have done a good job - but there are plenty of Canadian student options who are equally, if not more, likely to do a good job, without the employer hassle of figuring out how to read/assess foreign credentials.

I don’t think it makes any sense for the OP to take a year off right out of high school to study full-time for the LSAT instead of going to university. That’s terrible advice - s/he shouldn’t even be looking at the LSAT yet. S/he should pick a college based on where they will have the best education and experience and not try to game the system as to where has the easiest marks. I would be shocked if several people from each of the schools the OP listed don’t get into law schools each year.

When I mention that I'm a law student I generally get some sort of awkward congratulations as if I just cured the common cold and expect a compliment. After this it generally fades and people could care less. On the other hand people that know I'm a law student for some reason expect me to be some sort of intellectual genius in every situation. On one occasion I was made fun of for not fully comprehending the rules of a card game because I'm a "smart law student". Circle that square.

The hostility I feel towards this question is that it utterly ignores and intentionally trivializes the actual complexity of the profession I practice. There is a reason that only undergrad wannabes get hard over this stupid line of inquiry. There is a reason that when wannabes insist on asking this question anyway, the only support they receive is from other wannabes, who then go on to theorize about how every practicing lawyer must somehow be a bitter failure - which of course is the only possible explanation for why we won't give them the super secret but oh-so-simple one-line answer about which rock to look under to find all the $$$$. There is a reason why virtually every lawyer out there thinks this is a stupid-ass question to ask, when it is devoid of other context, and even if they wouldn't explain it quite the same way I'm about to, the same basic instinct drives us all to reject it.
Money is a common motivation. I'm not responding by hating on the idea that people want to make money. I want to make money too. I don't want to make it so badly that it overrides all my other priorities entirely, but I do like money. Which brings me around to this most essential observation. If you think you're somehow being original by trying to strategize your way into a well-paid job, you just aren't. Most people are trying to do the same thing, with varying degrees of devotion to the goal of making money. If there was a single, simple answer for how best to do it, do you really think it would be hard to find? If it was as simple as saying "take intellectual property in law school - apply to intellectual property firms - make profit" we'd have 80% of the professional practicing intellectual property law, 20% of the professional trying to apply for non-existent positions with the UN where they get to litigate the abuse of human rights in jurisdictions where they aren't qualified to practice law, and there wouldn't be a single fucking lawyer in the country ready and willing to close your real estate transaction. Is that at all what the marketplace looks like, in reality?
Someone wrote earlier that the more nuanced question of "how" is a far, far better question. And that's true. I can, and I have, written advice at great length about how to succeed in sole practice in areas of law similar to what I practice. But it is absolutely not, and never could be as simple as saying "practice X area of law." Anyone who thinks that question isn't stupid is insulting me, and the profession of law. Because what I do to succeed as a professional is so much more complicated than that. And any snot-nosed kid who doesn't understand that should at least be smart enough to shut the hell up and learn something when I take the time to correct them - rather than replying with some version of "I'm so much smarter than you! You just don't want to tell me the secret 'cause ur a LOZER!"
Just to give you all some idea of how complex this question really is. Earlier Levin made a joke in reply to the point that being excellent at anything is the best path to success, and he (she?) asked if that applies even to excellent Legal Aid lawyers. Providence replied with the stock answer that you learn your craft on Legal Aid files and then make money doing the same thing for cash clients. But take a look at Ted Royle's practice. Ted's primary client base are legal aid files. Ted himself is a highly accomplished lawyer and I'm sure he commands good private retainers. But he employs a lot of early year calls as associates, serves a lot of legal aid cases, and I'm sure this forms the bulk of what must be a very good income. It's been done before, and Royle's office isn't the only example of this business model. But my point is, he learned how to serve legal aid files, built out a practice that serves a lot of them well (at least well enough to keep them coming back), and that is what he does. There are examples of the same model in every area of law. You think the people running Axess Law aren't doing well? Sure you can make fun of the law office in the Walmart. No one aspires to be the associate sitting there making whatever they earn. But the people actually running this operation? That's a different story.
Success in this profession is not about picking an area of practice based on some impossible-to-imagine averaging of the incomes of all lawyers practicing in that area of law. It absolutely is about entrepreneurship, and about capitalizing on your natural gifts and aptitudes and inclinations (whatever they may be) and yes, it's about being good and ideally great at whatever it is you choose to do.
If you choose not to believe me, that's fine. But for the record, I'm not remotely bitter with my success, to date. Actually I'm doing far, far better than I ever expected. And it's based on following the advice outlined above.

[20] For the foregoing reasons, the Respondent submits that the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate.
Order Sought
[21] The Respondent requests that the application of them bitches be dismissed, and that this honourable Court pay them no mind.
All of which is respectfully submitted.
Taylor P. Swift
Swift Fake Legal Strategies LLP
181 University Ave, Suite 12000
Toronto, ON M5H 3M7
Solicitor for the Respondent

So, here's my take.
Is there stigma? Sure.
Is it enough to prevent you from working wherever you want and doing whatever you want to do in the profession? No.
In casual conversations with other articling students, I can tell you that there's definitely a sense that certain schools are more "prestigious" (read: difficult to get into) than others.
And, honestly, to the extent that the name of your school suggests you had fairly high admission statistics, you may in some instances, benefit from some small, initial "assumption of competency" that another student might not. It's a thing. People from impressive sounding schools impress people who like impressive things. This is a lot of us.
But this bonus - this privilege, whatever it is, is miniscule. The name of your school will not give you a meaningful advantage in actual practice, and is completely none-existent in a courtroom. Honestly, whatever privilege or stigma you have or don't have will quickly be earned or lost the minute you open your mouth. That's why seasoned lawyers can sour on UofT grads for example, while warming to kids coming out of the Windy city (EDIT: I know Windsor is NOT the Windy city). I've heard a few lawyers express these sentiments.
Look, the "stigma" of going to a school like Windsor boils down to not having bragging rights over students who went to other universities in the province. There's a sense that students who go to Windsor do so because they didn't get into other schools. This isn't untrue I find. So, the UofT student gets to say to themselves "I could have attended your school if I wanted to, but you're there because you couldn't get into mine." It's an ego trip. And they earned it. And it's one the average Windsor student will probably have to do without. But it actually doesn't matter in the long run.
I think the real question you want answered is whether this "stigma", however small, has any negative impact on the prospects of the average Windsor student. The answer is no. As someone who beat out students from every other law school for the position I currently have, I can tell you that firms hire the student, not the name of the school on the resume. Lawyers respect the student, not the name of the school on the resume. And clients depend on the lawyer, not the school on their resume.
The profession in general understands that the name of your law school is not a useful metric for predicting anything beyond your admission stats. But if you ever meet someone in real life that doesn't get this ... run. They've got self-esteem issues and are going to try to boost their ego at your expense.

You would be doing a great disservice to yourself if you thought there was really any stigma on any law school in Canada. Maybe if you were trying to obtain a foregin law degree would a stigma occur, but not a Canadian JD. I currently work as a legal assistant and will be attending bora laskin facutly of law this fall and I can tell you, not one person at the court house gives a damn where you got your law degree in Canada. All they care about is your work ethic, your intelligence, and your ability to produce results.
There are PLENTLY of Baystreet lawyers who went to Windsor. Big firms do not really care where you got your degree from in Canada, they care about your marks. Keep your marks high, get involved with law school clubs, apply for summer law jobs and you will get the job you desire.
Most people on this forum do not yet work in law and listen to these silly notions that get thrown around on the forum. It's an accomplishment to get into ANY law school in Canada. Yes, even Windsor isn't easy to get into, they have 2500 applicants and only around 180 spots. How do people actually think that getting into Windsor is easy?
To be frank, it's nonsense. As I said again, keep your grades high, network, join clubs and keep your face out there. You'll do just fine. Coming from a current Criminal Defence Legal Assistant, and soon to be 1L.

accepted this morning via email after an interview
LSAT - 158
cGPA - 3.43 which includes 2.5 undergrads. I screwed up in my first undergrad. Last 2 is nearly perfect GPA
Strong references.
Truly shows that Osgoode is a holistic school
Went into the queue on December 3 and first notice of interview on April 1

The same as everyone else, I assume! I submitted my applications through OLSAS with my personal statement, references, resume, etc. You don't actually have to put anything in the transcript section in order to submit an application. Toronto rejected me outright, which was no surprise because they say on their website that in the past 10 years they haven't accepted anyone who doesn't have at least 2 years of an undergrad. But then Osgoode invited me for an interview, which is apparently pretty common for mature students, and it went very well, in my view, and then they accepted me. Which is nice, because if I hadn't gotten into law school, my next step was to get my two years of undergrad and apply again. I'd actually also applied and been accepted to Brock University, they were my backup plan and luckily I got to reject their offer in favour of Osgoode's.

Here’s the best advice I ever got and have repeated often on this forum: you get 24 hours to gripe or gloat. Then you have to let it go.
The waiting follows the same idea: Whether it’s waiting for your exam results or the jury’s verdict, at a certain point you have to let it go and get a bit zen.
Maybe start a ritual for yourself: go to a certain park and sit on a certain bench and chill. Go to a certain bar and get a certain drink and chill. Call over a certain friend and watch Netflix and chill. Give yourself 24 hours to think it over and agonize and then resolve to let it go. Ritual acknowledges and honours the stress with a defined outlet and a defined time period.
Might help to contain it and be able to walk away.

Hey all,
First, shout outs to all the previous guys who’ve done this.
Second, as is the trend, here’s a mega thread for all you greasy incoming 1Ls. Feel free to post any questions you have about Osgoode, studying habits, living in North York, etc. Whatever you want. You can also PM me if you don’t want to post anything here.
[Mod edit: last year’s thread is here]

Go 👏 study 👏 abroad 👏
If it's something you want to do, DO IT. You will learn so much, gain independence, become familiar with a new culture and possibly a new language, and connect with people you never could have otherwise. These are all great things. Your grades for the semesters might be a little bit lower than they would be if you stay home, but ultimately I think that a study-abroad program says more about the type of person you are and the kind of experiences you've had than your GPA alone. You can use all sorts of experiences from your time abroad in your personal statement. I think what you stand to gain is worth much more than what you stand to lose in the couple of hundredths that your overall GPA might drop. As long as you actually study, you should be fine.
I say this as someone who did an exchange in her third year. I also had to submit my transcript from that school and my grades abroad were SIGNIFICANTLY lower than my grades in Canada (understandably so; I was taking courses and writing assignments in a different language). I still got in.
My only other piece of advice, depending on which country you're going to, is to covet the official transcript they give you. Don't give it away. Definitely don't throw it away. Keep it safe and make some notarized copies to attach to applications.

No one has ever cared other than family members and prospective law students. If you do crim work, people will ask for your cool stories, but I’m a corporate lawyer and everyone correctly assumes I have almost no cool stories. Bubbe is very proud her grandson is a big successful lawyer, but she’s also very proud my cousin got a B+ in chemistry, so, you know.
My partner tells me I’m handsome, but she says it with that smile that lets you know she omitted the “...in my eyes, on good days”.

As usual, I'm late to the party on these extended debates, but the discussion of this topic always kind of pisses me off so I'm chiming in. OP's question is a personal decision and there's no right answer that could generally be suggested for anyone. I don't know how anyone can strongly argue one side or the other in terms of general advice.
I got into law school while in my third year of undergrad. I made the decision to forego my fourth year of undergrad and start law school right away. My considerations were:
I could avoid a year of rent and tuition.
I was enrolled in a 4-year BAH program. I wouldn't get the BAH by skipping the fourth year, but I would have enough credits to graduate with a BA (effectively, a minor rather than a major), so I would have at least some degree to list on a CV.
I wasn't studying a subject that's practical or would be particularly helpful, either in law or independently.
I would end up getting a one-year head start on the legal job market, in the event hiring levels started to decrease.
So I went. The world didn't end. Things worked out perfectly well:
I learned how to manage additional stress and additional time demands in law school.
I was able to figure out what type of law interested me.
I got into clinics and moots, and was hired for TA and RA positions. My degree status appeared to have no bearing on any of it.
I had many interviews for 2L summer and articling jobs. While I can't say with certainty what happened in the decision-making rooms, I am aware of only a single law firm interview I had (from my summer student interviews) where my lack of a BAH (or, really, just my slightly younger age) appeared to be a roadblock to my getting the job. I ended up getting a much better job at a much better place (for me), as every other employer was primarily, if not entirely, interested in my law school performance and experiences.
I understand that student hiring in my preferred city was, in fact, somewhat more difficult for the class of law students after me.
I'm now working in my preferred area of law, in my preferred city, at my ideal firm, and loving what I do. I regularly participate in student hiring and have never heard any debate about whether to hire someone based on whether they completed their undergrad degree.
I was able to take an extended trip abroad after articling, and continue to travel multiple times a year. I have healthy personal and social lives outside of work.
In my case, in hindsight, I see no negative effect that my missed undergrad year had on my career or my personal development, and I have no regrets about what else I could have been doing in that fourth year of undergrad. To my knowledge, none of my colleagues consider me so "laser-focused" as to not want to to work with me.
Sure, this probably won't be the exact outcome for every person with a choice like this to make. This is, of course, my own personal experience. But that's the point. Everyone needs to figure out their own priorities and considerations, assess their own personal growth, and make a decision based on their own individual circumstances. There's no one-size-fits-all answer to OP's question, and certainly no clear answer given the limited information provided.

I don’t think it matters why officers are going through your phone. It matters that they are and what they see may breach solicitor-client privilege and that is a concern (and I would think not a small one). I don’t think it’s material that the CBSA officer doesn’t necessarily care about that particular bit of information.
It’s not practical to force every lawyer who crosses the border to wipe their phones and computers. Cloud storage is fine but there are other problems with that “solution” and I hope no one is seriously arguing that since it’s possible for lawyers to back their stuff up to the cloud that it makes it okay or tolerable.
I’m not sure what the solution is but something along the lines that Hegdis proposed sounds reasonable. I certainly can’t subject my phone to a search willy-nilly since my work email is on it. So my only choices are that I wipe my phone at the border and redownload gigs of documents and email afterward, or give up my phone for weeks or months while we go through the process of figuring out what has to be done with it?
That makes no sense. Surely lawyers are (and should be) more trustworthy than an ordinary person (otherwise why put such a focus on trust, good character, and so on as part of membership in the law society). Absent probable cause I don’t think a border agent should just be able to seize or inspect devices that contain privileged information just because they want to or their curiosity is piqued.

I'm not sure I agree with picking OP apart for asking this question - why isn't it fair?
I think it's relatively common knowledge that finance jobs in business make more than HR or marketing jobs on aggregate. That's just one example, and I can foresee someone jumping in saying something along the lines of "that's not necessarily true!!!!" The same can be said for @Diplock's analogy of baseball positions. In hockey, for example, centermen get paid a premium for their services, and players who score goals (as opposed to offering other positives for the team such as assists) are also paid a premium. In baseball I'm sure the same question could be answered based on which position is most valuable or sought after defensively (for example, I think 2nd base and left field tend to be positions that are easier to fill).
Your average run of the mill management consultant will also likely make more than your average accountant as well. I think this is a question that has so many variables attached, which have been pointed out, but it's also a question that can be answered at a high-level. Happy some were able to provide insights rather than criticize.

I'm just going to keep this short and sweet. Like pretty much everyone in this thread stated, the only type of people who have stigma toward Windsor are the 0Ls because well... they don't really know anything. Although some of you may be right in terms of having slightly better access to greater connections if you attend the Toronto schools, using the ultra vires numbers for the hiring rates of Bay Street firms as an indicator for which school has “better” hiring aspects would make a very good stimulus for a “flaw” LSAT question in the logical reasoning section. I just finished 1L at Windsor and have spoken to many, many students during my time there and I have noticed that the majority have very little to no interest in applying for Bay Street firms during OCIs but rather have a passion for other areas of law. To be honest, this surprised me in the beginning because I thought the vast majority of 1Ls would have been like “Bay, Bay, and ONLY BAY!” based on my ignorance as a 0L. Is there a chance that some of these people lied, sure, but there were just so many students here who expressed passion for a multitude of areas of law. After acknowledging this, I was actually surprised that the OCI hiring rate for 2018 was 13% here because it seemed a little higher than what I would have expected given what students have told me in regards to what they see themselves doing in the years to come. Whichever area of law you want to practice, Windsor will give you ample opportunity for doing so, just as much as any other law school. The amount of hard work they put into creating networking events and extracurricular activities is unbelievable.
I never really paid attention nor really cared about the potential “stigma” towards Windsor. I chose Windsor over several other schools after applying with a 3.73 cgpa and 166 lsat score and I honestly couldn't be happier. I would truly describe 1L as the experience of a lifetime. To those of you coming to Windsor this fall, welcome to the family ☺️

I'm a Windsor grad currently doing my articles on Bay St. I can't think of any instance where I was treated differently than any other student in my articling cohort by a lawyer because of where I went to law school. Even within the student cohort, nobody cares where anybody else went to school - what really matters is whether you can do good work. The fact that a student went to U of T doesn't inherently mean they can do anything better than a Windsor student can, it really just means that they probably had a better undergrad GPA/LSAT and paid more for tuition and rent through law school (I miss only having to pay $750/month for a bigger apartment in Windsor than I currently have in Toronto at triple the price). With some exceptions, you'll find Windsor grads at just about every mid-size (or larger) firm, and scores of them in government and quasi-government (we consistently do very well at the OSC, for example).
Where the stigma really festers is within 0Ls and current law students who (a) need external validation, (b) seek perceived status above all else, (c) have no idea what the practice of law actually entails. I've encountered students at receptions and during recruitment who have been way more snooty about law schools than any of the lawyers I've worked with.

There's currently a recent Windsor grad who just got an SCC clerkship. Should give you an indication that even the most prestigious of legal positions hire the student, not the school. In addition, if more Windsor grads obtain more clerkships, it may seek to lessen the arbitrary "stigma" that is attached to Windsor because it's not UofT or Osgoode.

While at the Meet & Greet and subsequent conversations with alumni who have reached out to me after accepting my offer, I have come to understand that the only people who truly recognize this stigma are 1. applicants and 0Ls, 2. non-law folk, 3. people in this forum.
I'm under the strong belief, as many others are, that a Canadian law school is a Canadian law school (with special regards to Ontario). This stigma seems to have arisen from nature of having a truly holistic admissions process, a weak focus (relative to other Ontario schools) on BigLaw placements, youth, and location. However, a quick search on LinkedIn (or a more complicated and lengthy search on firm pages) will show you that Windsor grads (yes even dual students) have ended up in all the places that students from more 'prestigious' schools have ended up.
From what I understand, people in law school and actual lawyers don't typically have such strong opinions on the status of Canadian schools aside from small banter. But of course, I am biased as I have always viewed Windsor as my top choice and will be attending this fall.

I just wanted to update this thread saying that I was really irrational to worry so much about getting a job after such a small amount of interviews. I ended up getting an offer a week after I made this post, as a summer law student for a multinational company. I figured I'd offer a post-mortem because I know other people are bound to be in my shoes, reading this, paranoid and wondering if rejections mean anything and if their search will ever end.
Consciously, the only thing I did on the interview differently was that I wasn't so eager and that I dropped a few memorable facts about myself that probably stood out in the interviewers' minds. If anyone else is in my position a few years from now, just apply broadly and be patient. Every single interview process has gotten much better over time, and I do believe it is a skill that can be worked on.
@Diplock's previous post helped me out a lot. It is some of the best advice I have ever read on this website for prospective interviewees. While I feel confident that I managed to nail down the first two points in the last interview I had, the third and most important point (perception of trust) is something that I need to dig deep into myself to figure out and work on. I feel like having a position this summer, one where I am given a high level of responsibility, will allow me to work on that over the next few months. Diplock expressed in words what I felt for a long time but couldn't place a finger on. Thank you so much for all of the informative and helpful responses.